From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) |
Date: | 2010-09-02 03:46:16 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinNp=7QYTh7wWmQRPAoy3m+YL-Ka8DHXK3cijar@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> The obvious next question is how to wait for multiple sockets and a latch at
> the same time? Perhaps we should have a select()-like interface where you
> can pass multiple file descriptors. Then again, looking at the current
> callers of select() in the backend, apart from postmaster they all wait for
> only one fd.
Currently backends have not waited for multiple sockets, so I don't think that
interface is required for now. Similarly, we don't need to wait for the socket
to be ready to *write* because there is no use case for now.
>> Windows implementation of WaitLatchAndSocket() seems not to be
>> so simple. We would need to wait for both the latch event and
>> the packet from the socket by using WaitForMultipleObjectsEx().
>
> Well, we already use WaitForMultipleObjectsEx() to implement select() on
> Windows, so it should be straightforward to copy that. I'll look into that.
Agreed.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2010-09-02 04:30:03 | Re: leaky views, yet again |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-02 03:38:43 | Re: leaky views, yet again |